Lem Moon Sing v. United States
"Lem Moon Sing v. United States" is a significant case concerning immigration law and the rights of individuals under U.S. legislation, particularly in the context of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The case centers around Lem Moon Sing, a Chinese-born businessman who had lived in California for many years and sought reentry into the United States after a brief visit to China in 1894. Upon his return, immigration officials denied his entry despite his claims and supporting testimonies that he was a merchant, not a laborer—categories that were treated differently under the law.
Sing argued that this exclusion amounted to a violation of his due process rights and the U.S.'s obligations under treaties with China. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the immigration decision, but the court dismissed his petition based on a law passed during his absence from the country. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling by an 8-1 decision, affirming Congress's authority to establish immigration policy and the finality of executive decisions in such matters. This case illustrates the complexities and challenges faced by immigrants, particularly those from marginalized communities, in navigating U.S. immigration laws during this period.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Lem Moon Sing v. United States
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus petitions by aliens
Date: Decided on May 27, 1895
Significance:The Lem Moon Sing decision upheld a federal law prohibiting district courts from reviewing habeas corpus petitions, thereby empowering immigration authorities to exclude or deport alien immigrants without any concern that judges might find fault with their procedures.
A businessman who had resided many years in California, Lem Moon Sing was born in China to Chinese parents, which made him ineligible for naturalized American citizenship. In 1894, he visited his native land with the intention of returning in a few months to resume living and working in the United States. During his absence, however, the U.S. Congress passed an appropriation act with a provision that immigration officials’ decisions were final when excluding aliens from admission into the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Decisions were subject to review by the secretary of the treasury. When arriving in San Francisco later that year, Sing appeared to meet the qualifications for reentry. He presented two credible witnesses testifying that he had conducted business as a merchant and was not a laborer excluded by the Scott Act of 1888. Immigration officials, nevertheless, denied him permission to enter the country.
Arguing that the exclusion was an unconstitutional denial of due process and that it violated treaties with China, Sing petitioned the U.S. district court for a writ of habeas corpus, which would have allowed a judge to review the decision. Based on the 1894 law, the petition was denied. The Supreme Court, by an 8-1 margin, upheld the judgment of the lower court. Speaking for the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan reviewed the Court’s precedents concerning the power of Congress to make immigration policy. While recognizing the duty of immigration officials to faithfully follow provisions in both laws and treaties, Harlan insisted that the U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to decide that the final judgment would be made by officials within the executive department of the government.
Bibliography
Hyung-chan, Kim, ed. Asian Americans and the Supreme Court: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1992.
McClain, Charles J. In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.